To me, I don't believe humanity evolved the way it has. In actuality, I believe it was created. But, I'm not saying by a divine power either. Just all the different forms of skeletal structures on the planet that has been found over the years suggest different humans (or at least humanoids) with the homo sapien skeletal structure not related to any other. Goes hand in hand with my rather oddball sci-fi setting, but also a bit of a belief.

Perhaps humanity in itself was an experiment itself and failed. As humans seem to be the slowest to adapt to settings that are -not- forced by themselves whilst animals and such adapt and evolve in various forms by both mentality and on a genetic front as well.

Technically I believe a scientific theory can never be proven, but only disproven.

But if the creationists want evolution 'proven', then they get to play by the same rules, and 'prove' their god first. :)

What needs to be understood, though, is that a scientific theory isn't just a random jumble of ideas that people hope to prove.

A 'theory', as it is understood by science, is one of the highest titles that can be given to any idea supported by facts. A 'hypothesis' is an idea that we're guessing at, and trying to disprove or find some facts to help support. A 'theory' is something that has been looked at from every angle, and while we can't prove it, neither is there a significant issue with it that would make the idea be immediately discarded.

Personally, as someone's said before early in the thread, I'm of the mind that if there is a creator, they did everything this way on purpose.

I also believe if there is a creator, they have a sense of humor. Take a good look at the duck-billed platypus and tell me I'm wrong

That's what happened to Einstein's Theory of Relativity, E=mc^2. They recently proved it, so it is no longer theoretical - it's fact. The energy that they couldn't locate at first is actually found in the vibration of the atomic structure itself.

Which brings us to the next question....how could something like THAT happen by accident? The universe is really damn organized. At the same time, there is so much improbable randomness that is clearly not planned out. And why would god build an entire universe simply around the only sentient life in it? That makes even less sense.

"I'm gonna mess with these guys and make the universe REALLY BIG so they can't find me!"

Evolutionarily speaking, we can't be that stupid. Oh wait, yes we can! Nevermind.

That's what happened to Einstein's Theory of Relativity, E=mc^2. They recently proved it, so it is no longer theoretical - it's fact. The energy that they couldn't locate at first is actually found in the vibration of the atomic structure itself.

Which brings us to the next question....how could something like THAT happen by accident? The universe is really damn organized. At the same time, there is so much improbable randomness that is clearly not planned out. And why would god build an entire universe simply around the only sentient life in it? That makes even less sense.

"I'm gonna mess with these guys and make the universe REALLY BIG so they can't find me!"

Evolutionarily speaking, we can't be that stupid. Oh wait, yes we can! Nevermind.

If I understood it correctly, the famous formula was finally proven, and if there is a god then bless him for Einstein, the man was incredible...nearly a century later they finally can prove him right. As I was saying, the formula was proven, but Relatively as a whole is still a work in progress.

I think it was Sagan that says finding a finely-tuned watch implies a watchmaker, but it's not necessarily so with the cosmos. I've heard him described as an atheist, I'm not sure if that's entirely true but he did reject common dogma wholesale. On the other hand I think Hawking was a little more theologically leaning in his theories. The jury is still out for me after everything I've seen and read on the topic...yes it makes fundamental sense that such organization that such laws and organization didn't just spring up out of nowhere, but then that's the more or less the notion of the Big Bang; the universe more or less sprang up out of nothing.

The big Bang is decidedly less popular than some of the other ones - the one of newest being oscillatory universe theory. Brane theory is also amusing.

From my perspective there is a creator. But it isn't the god as Christians (or 99.9% of other religions) contrive it to be. It designed perfectly these universes, ordered and disordered to proceed just so, evolution and mysteries all. Then it left, or was, perhaps part and parcel of its creation. Evolution is correct. So is the random occurrence of life on earth or anywhere else. The potentials were created, and that's all. Even the universe was created as a potential that may or may not have occurred in any number of ways. This universe happened to occur just so, in these ways, and this is how it works - all by accident that was made as a potential. If the things that caused this universe to exist in the ways it does had not, then it - and we - would not exist. Why? Because the creator likes surprises perhaps.

No proof. No reason. Just happened. But it happened because the potential, somewhere, somewhen, existed.

There is no somewhen. Time is something that was created with the universe just like all the basic forces, and before its existence did not exist at all, so it is impossible that there would be "when" outside the scope of our universe. We will never have any way to comprehend anything that has existed before our universe did, as our observations and thinking are constrained to forces and dimensions that exist in our universe. If we take concept of god as something that can never be comprehended by man at all, then anything before the birth of our universe definitely falls to that category. Also, discussion about anything outside the scope of our universe is quite pointless for the very same reason :p

but then that's the more or less the notion of the Big Bang; the universe more or less sprang up out of nothing.

Actually the theory is that it is a reccuring cycle, eventually everything will lose its propulsion and be dragged back down to the sun, creating a new black hole, but when the mass cannot be containted anymore its spits it out again in a new big bang.

Evolution is not abiogenesis. We may never know exactly how life began, though there are some reasonably decent models. For example, it looks like DNA evolved from RNA, but explaining where that RNA came from is trickier. In other words, if you want to believe that God created the very first life, feel free to. I don't hold with arguing from authority, but Darwin did mention that possibility at the end of The Origin of Species.

On the other hand, the evidence that all life evolved from simpler ancestors is extremely solid, and I've yet to see a convincing counterargument. Some ID arguments are based on oversimplifications, some are based on appeals to the unknown, and one common one is based on a clear misconstruction of entropy and information theory. This makes me a little unhappy. You can believe that there was a Divine guiding hand involved if you like; that's untestable, so there's no scientific reason not to believe it. But it's not science, and shouldn't be taught as such.

SUMMARY: Abiogenesis: Unknown, with some decent but incomplete models.Evolution: Solidly supported.Intelligent Design: Can't be disproven, but not science.

Actually the theory is that it is a reccuring cycle, eventually everything will lose its propulsion and be dragged back down to the sun, creating a new black hole, but when the mass cannot be containted anymore its spits it out again in a new big bang.

that's the proposed idea anyway

Actually it's a tad more involved than that...

Dark energy, whatever exactly that is, is not only expanding the universe every moment but that expansion continues to accelerate. This will drag everything in the cosmos further and further apart, until we get to what at least one theory is calling the Big Rip; essentially the end of everything.

The acceleration will continue until it affects smaller and smaller structures. At a very far point in the future, perhaps a trillion years, the expansion will outrace the quantum level, spreading the component particles of atoms apart until the strong force that holds nuclear bonds together severs, destroying all matter. The universe, or so the theory goes, will have started in the Big Bang; a singularity of infinite density and zero volume. It will end in a singularity of a flat, empty universe; infinite volume and zero density.

Plug in brane theory; the idea of these titanic membranes or cosmic domains that repeatedly converge and separate from one another, and the Big Bang might be only one of many...perhaps one of an infinite number of preceding universes.

The cycle may take a trillion years, but once the Big Rip or something like it occurs...colossal forces will rebound the branes, causing another crash of energy and matter to bloom into existence. The next universe to come.

But do we need to be taught Evolution or ID as far as I can tell one can study the basics of biology what we see now with no concern for any evolutionary inclusion we did that in the Christian School I attended. And at least medical doctor I go to even admitted Evolution is not necessary for the study of medicine at the levels your talking about. Bateria and viruses change and adapt to treatment is about all he has to be concerned with what most would call microevolution. If its controversial in schools just don't teach it if parents don't like it its America the schools should stay neutral on any matter that may offend at least a reasonable number of parents if they are publically funded.

I know a local white nationalist family that wants their child not taught about Black History Month since they find it offensive and to leave such persons in a general review course of history when such persons warrant it, as an example they stated: If a black man did something that warrants inclusion due to historical or culteural achievement in our childs fifth grade class then include him, but why have a whole month dedicated to one race?

The same here there is no reason to include evolution unless one reaches college and is studying to be a palientologist or something specialized that must deal with it if its offensive to half the population exclude it in K-12. If course we libertarians hate the government even having free public schools in many cases so we think the system itself is not necessary but just making a case for just excluding this and ignoring the issue.

SUMMARY: Abiogenesis: Unknown, with some decent but incomplete models.Evolution: Solidly supported.Intelligent Design: Can't be disproven, but not science.

We should get a philosophy major in here to turn them into those little squiggly lines and prove it mathematically wrong. I would enjoy watching that. I always enjoy watching them turn words into numbers and then file them into a REALLY COMPLICATED long division problem.

Well, there's Rome, and then there's that whole thing where people mention that the Japanese brought bombs down on themselves. Could mention the empire of ancient Egypt ... or the Mayan Empire itself.

Well, what chiefly comes to my mind with that phrase is this entire thing we call the modern age. We're poisoning the Earth, we're poisoning ourselves and our children, we're poisoning our minds with useless ideologies such as rampant consumerism and extremist theologies.

But do we need to be taught Evolution or ID as far as I can tell one can study the basics of biology what we see now with no concern for any evolutionary inclusion we did that in the Christian School I attended.

Evolution is the basics of biology. It's what causes everything from species to the parts of cells to the sequences of proteins to make sense. Studying biology without understanding evolution is like studying physics without understanding energy conservation or calculus. Yes, you can plug in some equations and learn some facts, but there's no scheme to tie it together.

For example, you may have learned that some organisms have nuclei, and some don't. In order to answer the following questions, you need a basic grasp of evolution:

1) Why do all mammals have four legs (or, in the case of bats, two legs and two wings that have leglike skeletons), and all insects have six legs? This doesn't seem like a "college-level" question; it's straightforward if you've studied evolution at all.

2) Why do we classify species in terms of genus, phylum, kingdom, domain, and so on? Before Darwin, it was based on how they looked, pretty much, but now it's based on how they evolved. If you learn about animals and plants without understanding evolution, it'll end up being pure memorization, as opposed to a real grasp of why they're classified the way they are.

3) Why are RNA and DNA so chemically similar to each other?

4) Why does the sequences of human proteins resemble those of chimp proteins more than they resemble those of fish proteins? Why do the degrees of similarity in sequence resemble the inferred trees of descent we get from the fossil record?

If you study biology without evolution, it's going to be mostly just memorization.

Quote

And at least medical doctor I go to even admitted Evolution is not necessary for the study of medicine at the levels your talking about. Bateria and viruses change and adapt to treatment is about all he has to be concerned with what most would call microevolution.

Microevolution is evolution. The term "microevolution" is generally not used by scientists; it's an ID ruse intended to convince people that somehow changes between species are fundamentally different than changes within species. This is simply wrong. It's possible to observe speciation (macroevolution) in a lab. The ID response is that you "never see someone evolving a new leg in the lab;" never mind that you can mutate a fly in such a way as to give it two extra wings.

A doctor who doesn't understand that "microevolution" is no different from "macroevolution" does not understand evolution. The rapid sequence change of HIV is the same process that leads to the development of new viruses - which should prove an awful surprise to him.

Quote

If its controversial in schools just don't teach it if parents don't like it its America the schools should stay neutral on any matter that may offend at least a reasonable number of parents if they are publically funded.

Some people find any number of things offensive. Quite a few parents are offended by the fact that non-Christian religions are mentioned and discussed in History classes, not to proselytize, but simply to explain the impact they had. Should we censor those segments of our history textbooks?

Strict mass rule is not a good idea when it comes to public education; it has a poor track record of respecting divisions between church and state, and the rights of minorities. Simply put, allowing any proportion of the population - even 63%! - to impose a particular religious view in a public science classroom is unacceptable. The theory of evolution has nothing to say on the existence of any god or gods.

Quote

I know a local white nationalist family that wants their child not taught about Black History Month since they find it offensive and to leave such persons in a general review course of history when such persons warrant it, as an example they stated: If a black man did something that warrants inclusion due to historical or culteural achievement in our childs fifth grade class then include him, but why have a whole month dedicated to one race?

Why have eleven months devoted to white people? "Historical or cultural achievement" has always been defined from a white, western perspective. If you insist on the traditional standard there, you'll automatically exclude quite a few students, who will never get positive role models to counter the dubious view of black people perpetuated throughout the media.

Quote

The same here there is no reason to include evolution unless one reaches college and is studying to be a palientologist or something specialized that must deal with it if its offensive to half the population exclude it in K-12.

Okay. What about my state, where it's offensive to less than half the population? Is the cutoff 50%? 60%? 25%? And it's not just paleontologists who use evolution. Geneticists like me use it. Molecular biologists use it. Even biochemists have to think about it if they plan on reconstituting an enzyme mixture using proteins from multiple species.

Quote

If course we libertarians hate the government even having free public schools in many cases so we think the system itself is not necessary but just making a case for just excluding this and ignoring the issue.

Private schools should be run on a Libertarian basis, and teach what they wish. Public schools, on the other hand, absolutely must not allow any particular religious group to filter the teaching of science through their lens.

(Incidentally, this includes atheism; an evolution class in high school should not teach that evolution "disproves" or "is evidence against" the existence of any god or gods. It should be presented factually, not as religious philosophy.)

I believe in evolution, like Overlord has pointed out, there is too much evidence to support it, but I also choose to believe in God. I believe, evolution fits into His greater plan (though I'm not quite sure how) there are a few days between every beast and man. However, how long is a day to a being like God? He might have decided to do away with some of his animals or they died out as he was making the world. There's just not enough pieces fitting together.

I believe in evolution, like Overlord has pointed out, there is too much evidence to support it, but I also choose to believe in God. I believe, evolution fits into His greater plan (though I'm not quite sure how) there are a few days between every beast and man. However, how long is a day to a being like God? He might have decided to do away with some of his animals or they died out as he was making the world. There's just not enough pieces fitting together.

I don't believe the two are inherently incompatible, at least for me it comes down the agnostic principle- it's not necessarily the existence of god that is being questioned, but rather the definition of god, which is always given by his would-be mortal representatives (and no matter what you think your holy books are saying, they're not invoking the almighty directly).

Doctor Carl Sagan said seeing clockwork precision in the universe around us implies the existence of a watchmaker, but it's not necessarily the case given what we know molecules can do given a few billion years to play around and assemble.

Stephen Hawking said it's not very useful to speculate what god may be able or not be able to do, rather, we should examine what he actually does with the universe we live in.

I'd try not to put too much stock in taking Genesis word for word, it's nearly impossible to miss it's just one huge metaphor, making that argument how long was a day as old as the hills and not very useful either.

As far as extinction goes, I think the conflict arises from this notion that god would want everything to survive. Knocking another hole here in the concept of an ever-present god, perhaps that's what the laws of physics are for: God started the universe but gave it laws to keep from mothering it 24/7/365...it's been demonstrated to be an extremely efficient but imperfect system. Things can die out if they don't adapt...might be a lesson in there for us as well; we shouldn't assume if we frack up badly enough that he's going to save all our asses.

Well the two main arguments I hear are the "As it is in Genesis." and "If God is perfect then every animal would stay as put."

1. The Bible is and has been a spoon for the vast sum of knowledge the universe contains. It's spoon feeding a primitive people things they would never comprehend. I do believe every event in the Bible happened but I am not sure how it happened. If the Red Sea parted right down the middle with room for the fish to swim around then it happened now whether or not that was an earthquake or an unseasonal drought is unclear. I think the Bible is a better moral guide than a historical account.

2. As for argument two. Perfection is inevitably a process. God is constantly becoming more perfect. What was perfect twelve seconds ago, or twelve nths isn't what is perfect now. That is what I believe made in His own image means that we have the capacity to make ourselves more and more perfect like he does.